I've created this special feature for the print media and broadcasters ("Page Nine" regardless of where it runs),
that covers stories afresh, not the way news rooms typically flavor things. It will help reduce the distrust
so many news consumers feel and could be the most avidly followed item you carry -- if you carry it.
It certainly is well received by my audience. This casual sample might make you say, "We'll NEVER run that!"
but Page Nine is built around ad revenues from clear-thinking mainstream businesses.
CONTENTS
Can the U.N. Gun Treaty Trump the Constitution?
1. Treaty or Constitution?
2. The Facts
3. Does ratification matter?
4. Conclusion
5. What, me worry?
(Treaty's goals according to U.N.)
Ronald Reagan called this author's contributions, "immeasurable."
----::::----
Please Don't Donate To Us
If you want to donate to our efforts, just buy our goods from us
"Prepping for survival is only crazy if you don't do it."
You owe it to yourself, your family, your neighbors
to be prepared for whatever may be coming down the pike.
Empty store shelves? No power? Rioting? Martial law?
Don't get caught unprepared -- and prepare smart.
We carry a wide selection of books for being prepared, take a look:
All our books, DVDs and other goods are listed here by category and alphabetically https://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm
Come up to speed quickly with these all-around best-in-class books on the tactics and strategies of personal self defense and surviving an armed encounter. Avoid the fight if possible, win if it comes, deal with the aftermath. These are classics, you save $20 on the complete set!
In The Gravest Extreme: The all time classic by Massad Ayoob.
Armed Response: The newest bestest guide to using a gun in self defense.
How To Win A Gunfight: Managing the instants between assault and returned fire.
You and The Police: Boston T. Party's guide to handling police when you're stopped.
Principles of Personal Defense: Jeff Cooper's brazen and shocking rules for winning.
The Truth About Self Protection: Everything from evasive driving to "hardening" your home.
The Traveler's Guide has set the standard for
more than a decade. It's always a good day
when the new edition comes out.
We work and wait for the day when true Constitutional Carry exists
across the land. When mere possession of private property
is not a crime. When police can take no action based on the fact
that you're armed. Until then, this is the book to have.
::::
THE PERFECT COMPANION
TO THE TRAVELER'S GUIDE
or for any armed citizen:
If you like my work, now you can get six of my best
all-at-once, really cheap, click the image for details.
https://www.gunlaws.com/books18packages.htm
The Virginia Gun Owner's Guide
All the new laws will be included as an update and web posted,
and everything is spelled out in plain English. https://www.gunlaws.com/vgog.htm
Art. VI
"This Constitution,
and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
1.
Can the U.N. Gun Treaty
Trump the Constitution?
It shouldn't, and the U.S. Senate won't ratify it (67 votes would be needed), but too many people in government would like to see international control over us, a main goal of the U.N. I'm not happy with the state of affairs I've described below, but all this will come to play and we don't want to be blindsided.
The bottom line is that the treaty will hold sway to the extent those in power can manage it. The media may lead the charge to hold the treaty out as a proper norm, and to declare America out of global compliance, even though it's only a proposal. And it gets more complicated.
Even if Hillary or Mr. Obama "sign" the proposed treaty, that has no legal weight, and it does not mean the treaty is signed and adopted and a matter of law (though I suspect the "news" media and the left may claim otherwise, forever). They'll invoke the Vienna Convention (below) for support.
Remember, the U.N. General Assembly must get the proposal and vote on it, though there is no number of votes needed to pass it per se. It exists in the ether forever, a convenient way to run an organization, eh?
We find out what's actually in the secret thing on July 27, if all goes as planned. It's not impossible that the negotiators will fail to come to agreement and nothing will be released. That sort of politicking is always a tool.
For now, we wait.
Alan.
--
2.
The Facts
Could the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty,
now being discussed in New York City
with an expected wrap-up date on July 27, 2012,
really infringe the Second Amendment?
Maybe so.
My research shows that both the law and precedent, on whether a properly ratified treaty or the Constitution are in ultimate control of an issue, are scant and not dispositive. It depends on the actual treaty language in question, what it seeks to control, the part of the Constitution called into question, the claims presented by an aggrieved party and more. Virtually no language from the U.N. effort is publicly known at this time.[1] The language of the Constitution, Article VI, is ruefully less than crystalline on this point.[2]
Constitutional scholar Dave Kopel points out that: "The general question of to what extent treaties can be 'equal' to, or change, the Constitution is very unclear. Constitutional scholars spend a lot of time arguing about it, and there is no settled, general answer. The Supreme Court isn't about to overrule Missouri v. Holland (described below), but at least one recent decision by the Court indicates that there's a majority that regards the Missouri principle skeptically, and may chip away at it."
Although you and I may want to believe that logic and common principle should rule, in the rarified air of such matters, complex legal precedents and reasoning are what hold sway. Kopel cites this case for one --
This was brought by Missouri to prevent a U.S. game warden from enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture under it. This treaty between U.S. and Great Britain aims to protect certain migratory birds. Missouri claims the federal statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment, and threatens the sovereign right of the State as owner of the birds within its borders.
The question raised, according to Oliver Wendell Holmes' seven-to-two decision, is the general one of whether the treaty and statute are void as an interference with the rights reserved to the States. The decision breaks both ways, with elements that can be excerpted to support or deflate a particular point of view unfortunately. For example:
"It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power..." however, "The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment." The decision is worth reading, linked above. Holmes says, "No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power," and he traces that back to Chief Justice Marshall. It's a short and circuitous decision.
Missouri lost. The treaty and statute made under it overruled the state's claimed sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
--
The other case, Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1956), 354 U.S. 1 (1957) is about the jurisdiction in a court-martial murder conviction of a woman who killed her Air Force sergeant husband while in England (never a dull moment at the Supreme Court, eh?). Kopel notes that, "the military status-of-forces treaty with the UK cannot eliminate the 6th Amendment rights of American spouses of servicemen stationed in England. The case is generally regarded as standing for the principle that constitutional rights cannot be eliminated by a treaty." The case seems to me less on point than Missouri, which is to say neither answers the question as clearly as we may wish. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=351&invol=487
Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., who has argued and won three gun-related cases at the Supreme Court, says that: "Reid v. Covert clearly states that a treaty may not be inconsistent with the Constitution. The difficult question will be whether specific treaties, such as restrictions on commerce in firearms, violate the Constitution. Courts are often blind to what appears obvious from the language of the Second Amendment (surprise surprise)."
--
One other high-profile expert points out that, "Treaties made 'under the Authority of the United States' are the supreme law, and any treaty made outside of the constitutional authority would not be." The problem there, as with the two cases cited above, is where those lines are drawn.
The NRA, an NGO (non-governmental organization) admitted to the conference, points out that at least 58 U.S. Senators are on record opposing any treaty infringement on the Second Amendment (leaving a question about the other 42), with 130 House members also opposing the scheme (with 305 unaccounted for), as of July 13. See the letters and details here: http://tinyurl.com/7dheupn
While some of us would surely and boldly draw the lines where they are "supposed" to be, i.e., in line with our natural and historic rights, the forces aligned against the Second Amendment have no problem arguing vigorously for its destruction, regardless of any of these details, and therein lies the greatest threat we face.
Anything in the U.N. ATT that works against the RKBA, even indirectly, will be cheered by the anti-rights advocates, with their "news" media allies leading the chorus. The ATT's rights-suppressing terms and conditions (if any) will be hailed as reasonable, common-sense gun controls with the weight of global consensus, and used to cast civil-rights supporters as Neanderthal throwbacks unworthy of civilization.
Many in Congress have already come out preemptively against any infringement in the treaty, but since we haven't seen the language it's impossible to say where that will fall. Would Congress object if the treaty says its goal is to help prevent crime and stop tyrants? Mr. Obama and Hillary have already voiced support for the still-secret U.N. effort.
Although the front end of a gun is supposed to protect against any tyrannical meddling, the cold-dead-fingers argument is little more than bumper-sticker rhetoric in modern times. Recall for example the Katrina debacle. Even the mere suggestion of such a thing (using gunfire to stop seemingly unconstitutional activity) could bring hellacious retribution just for the spoken words, let alone the use of force.
We're waiting.
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Footnote [1]. According to Gun Owners of America:
"The Treaty will create a U.N.-based Implementation Support Unit (ISU) which will become an engine of gun control around the world..."
and that
"Fox News reports that, under the latest draft of the treaty, every country would be required to submit a report to the ISU outlining 'all activities undertaken in order to accomplish the implementation of this Treaty, including… domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures.'
"Not only that, the ATT would require countries to set up their own government agencies to track any guns that could be exported. 'Parties shall take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users,' the draft reads."
Footnote [2]. Original intent, based solely on the words of the Constitution, is troubling (emphasis added):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
What do you think that means?
Doesn't it say a treaty is on equal footing
with the Constitution itself? (It sure seems to.)
Does it address how to resolve a conflict
between a treaty and the C? (No, it does not.)
Don't long-established rules of construction
demand that new law supplants old law? (Yes, they do.)
Does this mean the C is subservient in its entirety
to treaty, by the very terms of the C itself?
[full text]
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
3.
Isn't the arms treaty null and void
if the Senate doesn't ratify it?
Sure, but watch out for the Vienna Convention of 1969. As Kopel notes, this Convention was never ratified in the U.S., but "The State Department has adopted a policy of acting in compliance with it." Sort of like government without consent of the governed. Its effect on the ATT is unknown, once again a matter of some discretion. Kopel notes, "The VC does not require signed-but-unratified states to implement a treaty. It does require a state not to do things which would undermine the treaty." http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
Read it yourself. The key Articles for us are 18, 25 and 27 below (thanks for the legwork Charly).
Article 18 Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (emphasis added)
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.
Article 25 Provisional application
1. A treaty or a part of a treaty is applied provisionally pending its entry into force if: the treaty itself so provides; or the negotiating States have in some other manner so agreed. (emphasis added)
2. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty.
Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. (emphasis added)...
4.
CONCLUSION
1. The words of the Constitution are less than clear on whether a properly ratified treaty can override the terms of the Constitution itself. Scholars disagree on the point.
2. The two primary Supreme Court cases on the subject arrive at different results.
3. Anti-rights advocates will use anything they can in the treaty, even if it is not ratified, as a standard that should be lived up to.
4. The never-ratified Vienna Convention of 1969 can be used as a bargaining and propaganda tool against American rights.
5. This will ultimately resolve in the court of popular opinion.
P.S. There is nothing to fear, as the U.N.'s own Arms Conference Fact Sheet informs us (Google "UNODA"). The goals of the conference are (this is from their fact sheet):
To negotiate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms.
An Arms Trade Treaty aims to address all aspects of the arms trade, including:
o Scope - what weapons should be covered?
o Criteria - what situations should be taken into account by an exporting country when authorising a transfer?
o Implementation - what actions at the national, regional and global levels are needed to make an ATT work?
The ATT will aim to:
o Create a level playing field for global arms transfers by requiring all exporting countries to abide by similar standards for export controls
o Fill a gap in international efforts to curb the illegal arms trade
o Restrict the supply of weapons to human rights abusers, terrorists and organized criminal groups
o Bring more transparency to the global arms market.
The ATT will not:
o Interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession
o Create any international gun registers
o Lower arms regulation standards in countries where these are already at a high level
o Ban, or prohibit the export of, any type of weapons
o Impair States' legitimate right to self-defence.
--
Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders https://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)
"Don't be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom."
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
Public sentiment is everything.
With public sentiment, nothing can fail.
Without it, nothing can succeed.
--Abraham Lincoln
LINK REQUESTERS:
If you're like some folks who ask if they can link to or forward my stuff, the answer is YES! and I'm honored by such interest. You can use the PageNine logo or any art from my site, with my thanks and appreciation. https://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm https://www.gunlaws.com
================================
Comments help keep me going. Alan.
================================
Regarding Jobs vs. Work in Page Nine No. 112:
Alan, I don't think your whole Jobs and Work comparison is valid. I know many people with jobs who do not work (many of these are gov't employees). I also know many people who do not have jobs but work, really work. Volunteers mostly but there are others. WORK by definition = effort. JOB = paycheck and sometimes is understood as an entitlement. --Jim W.
I had to wrestle with that Jim, a few people made these points (like our mutual friend and economist Paul).
In the end, I had to go with it despite pre-release comments. We'll see how the public at large reacts.
You need to look at the words in a fresh light, move beyond old meanings, see the new.
You and others did motivate me to add this, which I think addresses the issue:
My guarantee: You'll be able to pick this analysis apart. Don't. Resist that temptation, especially semantics, and exceptions you can dream up. Understand the distinction here -- at its highest level: Jobs and work are not the same thing. Government by its very nature can only make work.
Jobs are only created in the private sector.
That's why so-called government "jobs" program fail.
When government speaks of creating jobs, they lie.
Alan.
--
Regarding boogie-man stories the media uses to spread fear in Page Nine No. 112:
You can't forget the doomsday scenario Y2K another stupid prediction. -Fred B.
Y2K was real, Fred. We spent countless billions repairing the systems. Hired thousands of retired COBOL and FORTRAN programmers to untangle the deep mess, remember that? The media went ahead and convinced everyone that it was a boogie-man myth of the lunatic fringe (right wing and "preppers" of course), even as they raced to fix their own systems, the lying snakes.
I had two Y2K failures myself. Needed to rent a car in Las Vegas on business in late 1999 and couldn't, because the system wouldn't accept my drivers license with an expiration date of 2002. (The counter gal falsified the papers and entered a bogus expiration date, invalidating the contract and insurance, but got me the car.) In my Bloomfield Press office, our computers could not gather a batch of orders if the date exceeded 1999, we had no way to take your order, FIND IT, and send you your goods. Apple circulated patches and fixes in the nick of time, or we'd have been out of business (or back to carbon paper). Y2K was not a fake. American ingenuity overcame the problem (as did techies the world over). Just don't let the media know, it would give them a bad day.
--
Sorry u are full of Krap and to allow guns everywhere makes u a target in a good poker hand. U lose the element of surprise.
Make my day. Carry a gun and I will slap your face in disgrace.. Guns are unamerican and unpatriotict. The NRA wants to sell guns and ammo not for a revolution but for enjoyment and protection. Our law enforcement will shoot or arrest your ass. Who is to tell the difference from the good gun totters and the bad gun toyters . We want to protect a democracy not a republic or a neo nazi idealogy or anarchy . We whom are born in america and sreves the country under a commander in chief are truly americans. -jacksonsam2
Click the images for good reading without buying anything.
----::::----
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
https://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for our f r e e full-color catalog
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
"No one could make a greater mistake
than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little." --Edmund Burke
Guns Save Lives
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still F r e e
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
"We publish the gun laws."
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440 <-- as of 2007
Scottsdale, AZ 85254 <-- as of 2007
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
https://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little." --Edmund Burke
Gun Save Lives
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still Free
Add yourself to this free list:
(Alan's private email list -- used infrequently for Page Nine
and gun-law updates; you can unsubscribe at any time)
